Hallett v. Slidell
11 Johns. 56
Opinion
According to Long v. Jackson, (2 Wils. 8.) the plaintiffs were authorized to introduce into their replication matter in explanation of, or to fortify, their declaration, without incurring the charge of a departure; and as they introduced new matter, to wit, the course and practice of the court as to appearance, the conclusion with a verification was proper, and the judgment below must be affirmed.
Judgment affirmed'.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Hallett v. Slidell, 11 Johns. 56 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1814).
11 Johns. 56 (Hallett v. Slidell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Cushman & Rankin Co. v. Boston & Maine Railroad
73 A. 1073 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1909)
Mayes v. Stephens
63 P. 760 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1901)